This'n is about local politics so feel free to skip

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Ashburn City Council discussed a plan to do away with property taxes last night. In place of that, the Council would set up fees. Two fees Stormwater and Fire Department fees.

Judging from the reaction last night by the Council, this one ain't gonna pass. More meetings are planned, so this could change if enough people lobby the City Council members to pass the proposal. What follows is my opinion.

Because it ain't gonna pass and because of declining property values, the Council is gonna raise taxes this year.

Property taxes account for about 10 percent of the Ashburn budget, if I remember the meeting correctly (notes still in saddlebags on Purple Haze.) But that 10 percent is necessary to fund City services at the current levels and rates.

So why won't it pass?

Running it down the line by Council member:

Cebo Bateman - He's gonna vote against it because it would require him to pay. As a disabled veteran (according to the US government) Bateman does not pay property taxes on his home, thanks to a Georgia Constitution amendment. The idea that he might have to go back to paying something to support the City services is something he objected to.

James Burks - I expect Burks to vote no after School Superintendent Ray Jordan delivered a well-thought and rational argument against the fee system. (more in a moment). Burks was, to my thinking, looking for something he could hang a no vote on.

Sandra Lumpkin - Former City Clerk, Lumpkin asked how the City could get by with the monthly income of fees v. the annual income of property taxes. She should know very well that the City banks those property taxes and runs off them, as reserves, until taxes come in again. The fee system would merely move the income to coming in monthly instead of annually. How she will vote, I do not know.

Algenard Bryant - I think Bryant is looking for answers that cannot be found outside of a policy decision by the City Council. I think he's looking for a clear cut and definitive answer as to whether the fees are a good idea or not. That is a decision he's gotta make. Mayor Jim Hedges said the two guys who are doing the property study for this fee based system won't have all the answers. Bryant is going to have make a decision based on the information, what he thinks is best for the City and what residents want him to do. Like Lumpkin, I don't know how he'll vote but if last night's meeting is any indication I expect him to vote no.

Art Eld - Art is gonna vote yes. He likes the idea and his support is only growing. He sees the fee system as a way to shift the burden of supplying city services off the shoulders of just property owners to everyone in the city.

Mayor Jim Hedges - The mayor won't figure into this unless there is a tie vote. Then he gets to vote. He'll vote yes as this is his proposal. He can veto a Council decision, but that can be overridden with a 4-1 vote. As this vote will be to implement a new program, a veto won't have any effect.

Ray Jordan - Not a member of the City Council, Mr. Jordan spoke as the School Superintendent. Eloquent as usual and rational as usual, Mr. Jordan's cogent arguments caused Burks to grunt what I took to be an affirmative noise several times during the meeting. I'll have the details of Jordan's words in next week's newspaper.

After the meeting Ray and I briefly debated the fees. He argues that the fees, which will be assessed on County and Board of Education property inside the City, will require everyone in the County to pay for City Services.

I don't have a problem with that. Those City services are supplied to the BoE and County facilities. Why should those two agencies get a free ride?

Jordan argued everyone, including me, is a resident of the County but not everyone is a resident of the City. He further said the only way those two boards could raise the money to pay those fees is through property taxes levied on everyone.

Granted. I still don't have a problem with that.

The County charges the City $80K a year for radio dispatching services through 911 (not 911 calls) and charges $30 a day for City prisoners.

Further, the County spends a considerable amount of it's budget on items which I and other City residents do not derive any benefit from.

Jordan pointed out we all live in the County.

Granted. But refining my argument, to my thinking I do not receive an adequate return from the County for my property tax dollars. My tax dollars, to my thinking, subsidize County services which are far less available to me, as a City resident, than if I lived in the County.

Examples? Fire Department and Sheriff & Jail. These items account for nearly half the County budget. If I call for emergency help, within the City I will get the Ashburn F&R Dept. and the police Dept. I have to specially request a deputy or the County fire department.

If this is gonna be a completely fair equation, I should not have to make that special request.

Further, since we are ALL residents of the County, then all crime takes places in the County so why does the City pay the County to house City prisoners? You may argue the City collects all the fines received from people so incarcerated. OK. The City can hand all that fine income over to the County.

The County Commission, in the past, has said NO! to that proposal. Why? The County gets a LOT more money by housing prisoners.

Since we are ALL in the County, why does the County charge the City 80K for radio traffic (nearly all law enforcement.) I remind you all the crime in the County happens in the County and all residents of the County (including in the cities) are County residents.

As for the BoE stuff, School Board property is afforded the exact same protections and services of every other piece of property in the City. BUT! Not everyone in the City receives benefits from the Board of Education. While this is a tired and old argument and I can argue it either way, I do believe that the school system benefits some at the expense of all. To wit: people who do not have children pay school taxes.  But as I said, this argument has been debated for years and will continue to be so with no end in sight.

To sum all this up, the present tax structure ain't fair. Too many people are getting a free ride or a discounted ride on the backs of other people.

If you want to make it fair, you charge people for the service they receive. You want the service, you pay the fee. You don't want the service, you don't pay the fee.

Asking me to pay for your services is just wrong.

Comments, including those calling me a complete idiot, are welcome. Cogent arguments with reason can be debated, if that is your wish. If not, all comments will be posted without reply from me.